That assumes that the side that's still complaining will even accept honest compromise. They could have just dug in their heels and not budged an inch. It's not like we don't see examples of that all the time in politics. The existence of complaints is not evidence of lack of compromise.

One definition I've heard of is that compromise requires both sides must lose in order to win. Or in other words, both sides have to be willing to give up things they really don't want to relinquish in order to find something that works better for both sides.

"If it has stats, we can kill it." - T.G. Jackson, intro to 3rd ed Hackmaster

It's not.
Someone once told me "Compromise can only happen once both sides listen to each other and strike a deal satisfactory to both parties." So if one party has made it clear they do not wish to compromise, then any further attempt to compromise is a waste of time.
So you move on to people who are willing to compromise and listen and share.

I had all kinds of things to say to this, some of them even typed. I'm just going to leave it here: I don't think you and several others have heard a word we've said, because you are too busy thinking about what you are going to say while we are talking. It's called engaging with the arguments, instead of playing debating games. We aren't even to a point where compromise is possible, and the evidence in front of me says we aren't going to get there.

I also don't see how the heck someone can think that quadratic wizard/linear fighter is somehow core to D&D's identity. No one ever intended for it to be the case. It was always an unintended consequence of broken game design and a lack of foresight.

False, it was intended from the beginning.
"Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."
- OD&D vol. 1, Men & Magic
I find this texture between the classes pleasing.

As a side note, reading Manbearcat's posts is like watching an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

It's not.
Someone once told me "Compromise can only happen once both sides listen to each other and strike a deal satisfactory to both parties." So if one party has made it clear they do not wish to compromise, then any further attempt to compromise is a waste of time.
So you move on to people who are willing to compromise and listen and share.

Very well, then, if you are set on this idea of compromise... Prove to me that you actually want to make a compromise. Tell me how you will make such a compromise in a way that will leave different perspectives equally satisfied. Tell me how you have been willing to compromise. Tell me where you are willing to make additional compromises if necessary.

I'm going to do the same, but before I begin I want to make something clear. If you make a single additional statement accusing me (or anyone else) of being unwilling to compromise, then I'll simply assume that all of your statements past and future are being made in bad faith.

First off, there are a number of things I absolutely must see in the next edition of D&D. These are things that the absence of is an immediate dealbreaker.
1) The designers need to acknowledge that many fans want game balance. To be honest, the game doesn't need to actually be balanced, but the designers need to recognize that imbalance is not what we want. Effort needs to made to discuss game balance and provide it for those who want it.

2) The game needs to have a variety of classes and other major options, and they need to be meaningful and effective options. A game that tries to establish the Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard system as the only set of classes won't ever work for me. I don't want a game which assumes every team has a Cleric.

3) The game can't be hideously offensive. It can't be filled with terrible racism, disgusting art, or contain screeds decrying particular political or religious views. It also shouldn't act as a giant soapbox for the designers to rant about their gaming preferences. I'd say that I shouldn't need to say this one, but D&D has a problem with this kind of thing and 5E in particular has drawn some ire due to this kind of stuff already.

4) The game can't depend on DM fiat in order to function. It's fine for people who want to play that way to play that way, but it must not replace rules for people who don't like that style.

Next, I guess I'll list a few things I really want to see, and wouldn't be inclined to buy the game unless it included them:
1) The game needs options to create complicated characters who make interesting tactical choices. This particularly applies to a "fighter" type class. I don't mind if there is a 3E Fighter or Slayer class, as long as I can use a Warblade or 4E Fighter class instead.

2) The game shouldn't be built around the idea of "magic solving everything". People shouldn't need magic to solve problems, and that includes things like healing and counteracting magical threats. At the very least, if such magic is necessary, it shouldn't be restricted to certain classes, and should instead be useable by everyone (such as with rituals).

3) The game must be open to non-traditional fantasy. The game can't get mired in Vance and Tolkein, and instead should branch out to all possible sources of inspiration. Myth, videogames, anime, sci-fi... Anything should be acceptable.

4) The math really needs to work, and shouldn't break down at higher levels. The whole game needs to be thoroughly playtested, and things shouldn't be preserved without appraisal just because of tradition.

As for a few more specific mechanics or concepts I want to see in, but would accept if they don't get in...
1) Healing Surges
2) No "Generalist" Wizard
3) Replacing the Fighter with a range of better-defined martial classes.
4) No "+x" items or magical item dependency.
5) 4E-style defenses and saving throws
6) No feat system (should be replaced with something better)
7) Well-defined class and monster roles
8) Prioritization of fun D&D IP race choices like Dragonborn and Warforged over boring, generic choices like gnomes and elf subraces.

I had all kinds of things to say to this, some of them even typed. I'm just going to leave it here: I don't think you and several others have heard a word we've said, because you are too busy thinking about what you are going to say while we are talking. It's called engaging with the arguments, instead of playing debating games. We aren't even to a point where compromise is possible, and the evidence in front of me says we aren't going to get there.

I give up. You win. Hope you are happy with the victory.

not really. this whole 5e debate is really a pyrrhic victory for all involved.

Yes, I'm sure 4e had a completely sustainable fanbase. Which is totally why WotC decided to tank their profit for eighteen months and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, risking all their jobs and the survival of the brand, on the success of a new edition. #sarcasm

What kind of failure D&D always has been. OD&D - replaced by AD&D because it was a failure and couldn't sustain itself. AD&D 1E replaced by AD&D 2E, because it couldn't sustain itself. D&D 3E - couldn't sustain itself, so they created D&D 3.5. And now D&D 4. Really, why do they bother with this game, it will never work. They'd be better of to create something like Magic: The Gathering.

Yes you can have all sorts of consequences that are caused by the dwarf fighter's poor attempt at diplomacy. That's what a good, creative set of players and DM do well. Although I would be pretty pissed off if my dwarf's low diplomacy roll made it rain. I'm playing D&D, not Toon. I don't think the consequences should be unrelated to the cause.

Taking the view that consequence must be related to ingame, pre-established causal precursors puts a severe (I'm tempted to say fatal) limit on what can be done with non-combat resolution systems. Conversely, comparing such systems with a metagame component to Toon is a little unhelpful - the better comparisons, as far as D&D is concerned, are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel and D&D 4e (the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium clearly relies on metagame-adjudicated consequences, even though - given the absence of helpful advice - the technique is not expressly called out as such).

Originally Posted by billd91

it's still more advantageous to just roll your good scores in a formal skill challenge situation if there's any significant consequence of failure. Approaching the math of that structure with a low modifier is a killer.

This still presupposes that failure is not an option. In D&D that has traditionally been the case - traditionally, in D&D, failure is a killer - of PCs!

But if non-combat stuff is meant to work and be viable, this has to change. Bounded accuracy or not, does anyone think that D&Dnext players will have their PCs make checks based on less than optimal stats in circumstances where the consequence for failure is losing the game? There is nothing magical about D&Dnext's stat check mechanics that will make players less able to calculate the odds. If you want creativity and variety in stat checks, players have to be willing to run the risk of failure. And this requires making failure a viable option (ie fun for the players, even if not fun for the PCs).

You get the 1/2 bonus but the DCs go up at the same rate so the bonus is largely irrelevant. So the 5-10 disparity in skills never goes down.

Unless someone gains skill training, (through feat or, more normally, multiclass feat) yes. Are you also prepared to accept now that this is very different from 3.X where the disparity in skills between trained and untrained rises every level?

Also are you prepared to accept that 4e is literally the only edition of D&D where there is a decent way of bringing the skill disparity down for a non-class skill by investing resources? In 1e it's almost impossible. 2e it depends on the NWP. 3e you'd have to buy ranks in a cross-class skill and are limited to half level rather than level. 4e you simply spend a feat for a new trained skill or gain a new skill through a multiclass feat.

And, for specialists, it only goes up as stat boosts come into play. And feat. Plus backgrounds and racial bonuses.

Plus powers (normally but not exclusively utility powers) plus items plus class features, stances, and utility powers which can change the way the skill is used.

Yes, you can use any skill but you're always better off letting someone else make the roll and training in skills where you have an ability score bonus.

So your new claim is that 4e provides numerically measurable bonusses and that is bad? If one person has an Underwater Basketweaving rating of +17, and the other has a +18 then it is always mathematically better to let the person with the +18 make the roll. This applies to AD&D stat rolls every bit as much as to 3.X skills or 4e skills (or, indeed, thief skills and NWPs).

At least it's always better unless there is a systematic reason to have more than one person rolling a given skill. Something like a mechanic where the total number of successes matters. And what is the only edition of D&D to have one of those in the core rules? You guessed it. 4e with Skill Challenges.

(I say the core rules because the skill challenge mechanics are little different to the complex skill checks in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana).

Some system mastery at work.

I don't know what system mastery you think you have. But it isn't mastery of 4e, whatever else it may be.

Originally Posted by Jester Canuck

It's not.
Someone once told me "Compromise can only happen once both sides listen to each other and strike a deal satisfactory to both parties." So if one party has made it clear they do not wish to compromise, then any further attempt to compromise is a waste of time.

You know the single best way to show you are not interested in compromise? To continually distort the other position and unfairly denigrate its strengths, thereby demonstrating you are not interested in a constructive dialogue. It's even better than the RPGPundit's method of breaking Godwin's Law and suggesting that Monte Cook's vocal cords be surgically removed.

Even a superficially uncompromising line may merely be opening a negotiating position - different people haggle in different ways. Distorting the other position demonstrates you are not negotiating in good faith.

The only franchise I can think of as an example right now is Batman, which has gone "back to basics" in movie form twice and comics four or so times. But that's not a good example as it equates 4e with Batman & Robin and even the most fanatical 4e hater wouldn't go THAT far.

Taking the view that consequence must be related to ingame, pre-established causal precursors puts a severe (I'm tempted to say fatal) limit on what can be done with non-combat resolution systems. Conversely, comparing such systems with a metagame component to Toon is a little unhelpful - the better comparisons, as far as D&D is concerned, are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel and D&D 4e (the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium clearly relies on metagame-adjudicated consequences, even though - given the absence of helpful advice - the technique is not expressly called out as such).

From the comparison I'd be more tempted to use Teenagers from Outer Space where there is an effective requirement for non-consequential interference in the event the PCs become engaged in certain delicate actions.

Placing such an action-->consequence constraint only becomes stifling in resolution systems where only the PCs have agency -- like skill challenges (the main non-math reason I dislike them) and the players have no other input.

If the resolution system extends agency to other actors in the scene then limiting the consequences to action doesn't have the same constraint on narrative direction since other actors can invoke directions unforeseen by the players.

If the game system affords other player input, such as Whimsy Cards or the Strands of Fate game's declarations then narrative direction is wide open whether or not a challenge in underway.